Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets_4 doc

of computer programs to signal the ‘‘best’’ times to buy or sell—so-called program trading. Improved transacting technology and the increased reliance on mathematical models to trigger the buying and selling of huge blocks of stock (and futures, of which more will be said shortly) proved to be a combination that, like margin buys in the 1920s, pushed Wall Street into ever more vigorous trading. This new trading style, reminiscent of the 1920s, led to wider swings in stock prices and increased trading volume. By late 1986 concerns about the impact of computerized trading systems were being raised by, among others, John J. Phelan, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Most firms and traders on the street ignored such concerns. ‘‘In the remaining months of 1986 and through most of 1987,’’ writes Metz, ‘‘Wall Street firms will become more aggressive in their in- dex arbitrage, and more and more of their clients will ask to get on the bandwagon The trend will also be driven by another evolving program trading strategy, ‘dynamic hedging,’ more widely known by the misnomer ‘portfolio insurance.’ ’’ 16 Some argue that it was not program trading that caused the October 1987 break but the failure of the actual trading mech- anism. That is, because program trading involves movements of huge blocks of stock, an atypically large volume could overwhelm the trading network. Even with continual technological improvements to facilitate trading, by Oc- tober 1987 the confluence of tremendous trading volume (stemming in part to activity in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) and the inability by floor specialists to establish orderly markets led to one of the most dramatic breaks in the stock market’s history. When the DJIA reached its then record high of 2,722.4 in August 1987, this marked a near-doubling of stock prices in only a few short years (see Figure 2.3). Even though the DJIA stumbled a bit earlier in the year, stock prices continued to rise even in the face of unfavorable economic news. The U.S. trade deficit was soaring and the dollar’s exchange value with foreign currencies was dropping. Under the leadership of its newly installed chairman Alan Greenspan, the Fed was pushing interest rates higher in part to protect the weak dollar. Just before Labor Day the Fed announced that it was raising its key policy tool, the federal funds rate, by fifty basis points. This an- nouncement sent a shock wave through the market. ‘‘With stocks already looking too expensive relative to bonds,’’ Metz notes, ‘‘the Fed suddenly and substantially enhanced the allure of bonds.’’ 17 Following the Fed’s rate hike, stock prices began to recede from their August highs. Not only was the economic data unfavorable, but the federal government publicly began taking a closer interest in the buyout activity that helped fuel the market’s advance. On Tuesday, October 13, the House Ways and Means Committee announced it was going to investigate the tax benefits associated 26 The Stock Market with leveraged buyouts. The message was clear: Congress intended to close some loopholes through which the corporations and Wall Street firms had wiggled. Congress wanted to get its share of the taxes that it had missed. With rising interest rates and the threatened loss of tax advantages for buyouts and mergers, the drop in stock prices accelerated. What makes this part of the story different from 1929 is how the market dropped. For example, the day after the Ways and Means Committee an- nouncement, the DJIA lost ninety-five points. This decline did not come from ordinary investors selling their stock but from sell orders emanating from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). Futures contracts for the S&P 500 were sold by traders in Chicago and this translated into selling pressure in the stock exchange back in New York. (This relation is detailed in Chapter Five.) Further selling of futures contracts pushed the DJIA down farther on Thursday, Oc- tober 15, when it closed at 2,355. In just a little more than six weeks the DJIA lost about 13 percent from its peak value. The worst was yet to come, however. Trading on Friday, October 16, opened with the news that an oil tanker traveling under the U.S. flag was attacked by Iranian forces. Fears of increased turmoil in the Middle East and the potential disruption of oil flows triggered sell orders as investors sought safety in bonds and cash. In the late morning a handful of index arbitrageurs executed sell programs in the NYSE that amounted to over $180 million. This action created a large discount between the S&P 500 futures contract and the S&P index value in New York, and this deviation activated a number of program trades to sell. Metz estimates that program trading accounted for 43 percent of the volume in the final half hour. 18 By the close, the DJIA had lost another 108 points. Modern technology made trading faster and more efficient. Even so, trading on Monday, October 19, opened with a problem familiar to investors in 1929: a slowdown of price information. In 1987, unlike 1929, the ticker was not delayed, but trading was delayed because of order imbalances with the specialists on the floor of the exchange. The specialists at the NYSE confronted huge sell orders stemming from the actions at the CME. With sell orders outnumbering buy orders, the NYSE imposed trading delays. These delays meant that providing information about market clearing prices—the spe- cialists’ job—slowed. This lack of information—the modern version of the delayed ticker tape—further raised anxiety levels of traders at the CME. Try as they might, specialists faced a losing battle that day, also known as Black Monday. John J. Phelan later recalled it as ‘‘the nearest thing to a meltdown I ever want to see.’’ On Monday, October 19, 1987, over 604 million shares were traded, a bit less than the previous record set on the previous Friday. When it was over, the DJIA lost 508 points or 22.6 percent, making it by far the worst percentage decline day in the stock market’s history. A Brief History of the U.S. Stock Market 27 On Monday night there was a scramble for liquidity. Because some spe- cialists ended the day as net buyers of stock, they could not meet their pur- chases with existing funds (transactions must be cleared within five days). Normal providers of funding now stalled; banks denied loan commitments and withheld credit from the market. The situation was so dire that one firm merged overnight with another brokerage house to meet its financial respon- sibilities. Not only did Monday reveal that the specialists could not handle such market pressure, but it also exposed trouble in the existing technology of trading. The breakdown in the system meant that stop-loss orders could not be executed. Unable to get through to brokers, many traders lost huge sums simply because they could not execute their sell orders. Trading on Tuesday, October 20, was delayed and trading in many stocks, when the market finally opened, was halted at times. One early event marks a clear difference between the 1929 and 1987 crashes. Early Tuesday morning the Federal Reserve released the following statement: ‘‘The Federal Reserve, consistent with the responsibilities as the nation’s central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.’’ The fact that the Fed immediately lowered the federal funds rate from 7.50 percent to 6.75 percent helped turn market psychology around. Behind the scenes arm twisting by Fed officials, most notably Chair- man Greenspan and Gerald Corrigan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, helped. Stocks closed higher on Tuesday than Monday and by Wednesday, the DJIA posted a 10 percent gain. The Fed’s actions during the rest of October were aimed at restoring confidence in the market. As illus- trated in Figure 2.3, the DJIA regained its balance, closing the year without further major losses. The aftermath of the 1987 crash bears no resemblance to the events fol- lowing 1929. Not only was there no economic depression, there was not even a mild recession. This surprised many observers (and many professional econ- omists) who predicted that such loss of wealth would reduce consumer spending and lead to an overall economic downturn. This reaction, or lack of, is partly explained by the rapid response of the Federal Reserve. As just discussed, the Fed in 1987 moved quickly to fulfill its role as lender of last resort: in times of financial crises injecting liquidity into the market, arm twisting financial institutions, and standing ready to insure an orderly market. Robert T. Parry, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, summarized the Fed’s actions as doing ‘‘what it was supposed to do: it transferred the systematic risk from the market to the banks and ultimately to the Fed, which is the only financial institution with pockets deep enough to bear this risk. This allowed the market intermediaries to perform their usual functions and helped keep the market open.’’ 19 The 1987 crash brought about 28 The Stock Market a number of institutional reforms in the stock market. Most of these related to stopping trading when certain volume barriers were breached. These ‘‘circuit breakers’’ served to coordinate trading halts across the futures and equity markets. It became widely believed that selling pressure emanating from the equity futures market in Chicago and the inability of the trading mechanism to handle the deluge of sell orders explained the crash. The objective of circuit breakers was to halt trading so the second of these events could not occur. When looking at the long history of stock prices, the Crash of 1987 looks like a blip in the market rally that began in the early 1980s and ran until 2000. Charles Schwab, the namesake of the brokerage house, said that ‘‘Black Monday [1987] did to investors what Jaws did to swimmers. They do not want to go in the water, but they still come to the beach.’’ 20 Their fear of the water was short-lived. By 1990, the DJIA passed through 2,800, surpassing the peak reached in August 1987. As the 1990s wore on, investors forgot about Black Monday and dove back into the financial waters with even greater enthusiasm. T HE CRASH OF 2000: NEW ECONOMY OR IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE? At the close of 1996 Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, delivered the Francis Boyer Lecture to an assembled din- ner crowd at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C. think- tank. The title of the speech was typical for such gatherings: The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society. In his wide-ranging talk about the pitfalls and dilemmas facing central bankers like himself, the chairman ut- tered two words that to many captured the essence of the ongoing run-up in stock prices: ‘‘Irrational exuberance.’’ What he actually said was ‘‘But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?’’ Embedded within a speech of over 4,300 words, these two words caused quite a stir and remain part of our vocabulary. Stock market participants now believed that the chief U.S. monetary policymaker thought stocks were overpriced. The thinly veiled hint was clear: If no correction occurred, there would likely be a sustained bear market or even another stock market crash like 1987. As Greenspan made clear only a few sentences later, a ‘‘collapsing asset bubble’’ would have dire economic consequences, as the recent Japanese experience had showed. Greenspan had thrown down the gauntlet to those who believed that stock prices would only continue to rise. History informs us that stock prices did in fact continue to rise for the rest of the decade. Figure 2.4 shows this quite vividly. Within a few years of this speech Greenspan began to explain the continued ascent of stock prices with A Brief History of the U.S. Stock Market 29 reference to a ‘‘new economy.’’ What are some of the reasons for the market’s unprecedented rise and some explanations for the decline that began in early 2000? Was the eventual crash the bursting of an asset bubble, or was it a predictable correction from changes in the underlying fundamentals? The majority of economists believe that individuals in financial markets behave rationally. There may be times when stock prices appear to lose track of the underlying fundamentals, such as corporate earnings and profits, that explain stock prices, buttheyareisolated instances. If stock prices are explained by investors’ perceptions of future or expected cash flows being generated by companies, then the run-up in prices during the 1990s was tailor-made to fit the ‘‘fundamentals’’ view. Although many thought the Crash of 1987 would adversely affect the economic expansion, the economy continued to grow throughout the 1990s. Except for a relatively mild recession in 1990, the period from the early 1980s through the end of the 1990s is characterized by sustained economic growth. One economist even dubbed the period ‘‘the long boom.’’ But what separates this period of economic expansion from others was a suitable ex- planation. For many the expansion occurred because the long-awaited revo- lution in information technology (IT) had finally taken hold. Although economists predicted that the improvements in computer technology and the attendant increase in the use of computers would spur productivity and eco- nomic activity, it never seemed to materialize. That is, until the mid-1990s. FIGURE 2.4 Dow Jones Industrial Average: Close, 1990–2005 Source: Adapted from www.economagic.com. 30 The Stock Market A recognized expert on the relation between capital formation and eco- nomic growth observed in 2001 that ‘‘the resurgence of the American economy since 1995 has outrun all by the most optimistic expectations The development and deployment of information technology is the foun- dation of the American growth resurgence.’’ 21 This view reiterated what many already suspected: computers and related technologies had achieved something of a quantum leap. They were faster, more capable, and their use to gather and process information reached new levels. As the IT revolution took off, the economy (and stock prices) went along for the ride. Not only did the economy grow and incomes rise, but inflation also re- mained surprisingly subdued. Unlike past economic expansions that brought higher rates of inflation, this time prices did not increase very rapidly. Some explained this phenomenon by the fact that improved communications and computerization lowered operating costs of firms, cost savings that got passed along in the form of slower price increases. Large box stores like Wal-Mart and Costco took advantage of the information technology to significantly improve their handling of inventory and shipping, both of which allowed them to realize significant cost savings. Another idea was that increased global competition forced U.S. producers to hold down price increases. If stock prices reflect investors’ expectations of firms’ future earnings, a growing economy explains some of the upward march in stock prices. As Figure 2.4 shows, however, the second half of the 1990s was distinctly dif- ferent from the first half. Even though the market was rising at a reasonably healthy pace following the 1987 crash, it exploded after 1995. In late De- cember 1991 the DJIA broke through 3,100. It took until February 1995 for it to surpass the 4,000 mark. Using the same time interval, the DJIA went from 4,000 in 1995 to over 11,700 by 2000. Clearly something was different in the second half of the 1990s. The cost of computing plummeted in the 1990s. Computing was faster and cheaper than ever before, and everyone projected that price declines would continue into the foreseeable future. So how would a market popu- lated by rational investors respond to such rosy forecasts? Investors flocked to buy tech stocks. It made sense to do so. Stanford University economist Robert Hall observed that ‘‘a rational stock market measures the value of the property owned by corporations. Some types of corporate property, especially the types held by high-tech companies, have values that are exquisitely sensi- tive to the future growth of the cash they generate.’’ 22 In other words, the high- flying stock prices on firms that seemed to offer nothing more than possible future success was explained not by invoking a ‘‘bubble’’ explanation, but by investors willing to bet that the stock they just purchased was going to be the next Microsoft or Dell. A Brief History of the U.S. Stock Market 31 The bull market was not without some setbacks, however. The market was impacted, albeit temporarily, by the onset of the Asian Crisis in 1997. (See Figure 2.4.) The crisis was precipitated by speculative attacks on the currencies of several East Asian countries. Beginning with a major devaluation of the Thai baht, the crisis spread to the currencies of other countries, including South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. There are several theories, but the most popular explanation is that the rapid expansion of these economies was built on fraudulent behavior in the banking systems. As the crisis unfolded, it became clear that loans were made not on the basis of expected financial outcomes but often on the basis of a borrower’s relation with the bank. As the fraud became apparent, foreign investors unloaded financial assets in these countries and with changes in investment expecta- tions, others followed suit. The speculative attacks began. The U.S. stock market also was affected more dramatically by two related events in 1998. One was the collapse of the Russian financial system in August 1998. This produced a sharp reaction in the U.S. stock market: On August 31, 1998, the DJIA dropped over 512 points, a 6.4 percent loss on one day. In and of itself, the Russian collapse probably would not have affected stock prices for long. However, the fact that this event caused the near-collapse of a U.S. hedge firm, Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), makes it worthy of discussion. The collapse of the Russian financial system—the Russian government essentially declared bankruptcy—caused many investors to reassess the rela- tive risk of corporate and government bonds. In a flight to quality, investors shifted into safer government bonds. Unfortunately for the management of LTCM, this response widened the spread between prices on the two bonds. LTCM had bet on exactly the opposite to occur: Since the spread already was at a higher than normal level, LTCM bet that it would shrink. When the Russian crisis widened the spread even further, LTCM faced huge losses. By mid-September the company was no longer able to meet creditors’ demands, and LTCM, like the Russian government, was effectively insolvent. As seen in Figure 2.4, stocks took a beating in mid-1998 as news of Russia and LTCM spread. The DJIA, which had peaked at 9,328 in July, dropped to 7,539 by August 31, 1998. To meet its obligations, LTCM could have sold off its assets at whatever the market would pay. Such a ‘‘fire-sale’’ of LTCM’s assets—nearly $80 bil- lion in securities and $1 trillion in financial derivatives—would negatively impact a market that already was jittery from the problems in Asia and Russia. So the Fed moved quickly and signaled the seriousness of the situation by lowering the federal funds rate seventy-five basis points, a large change given its usual twenty-five basis point changes. The Fed also engineered a very 32 The Stock Market public rescue plan of LTCM by its creditors. This plan infused $3.6 billion into LTCM in exchange for specified changes in management of the fund. Whether this intervention was a wise policy is debatable, but it did calm financial markets. Stock prices began to climb sharply as the crisis was averted. From its low of 7,539 on August 31, the market once again began its upward climb, with the DJIA pushing through 9,400 by the end of 1998. As the DJIA pushed through 10,000 in early 1999—it stood at 3,600 only five years earlier—there arose an increasing level of anxiety. As in each of the previous crashes, the period preceding the decline often is characterized by mixed signals from otherwise reputable sources. Recall Irving Fisher’s claim on the eve of the 1929 crash that stock prices would only go higher? In an eerily similar statement, financial reporter Gretchen Morgenson wrote in the New York Times that ‘‘the market’s [upward] move is significant in what it reflects: the unparalleled strength of the economy and the dominance of the world economic stage by American Corporations.’’ 23 Juxtapose this view to that of Gail Dudack, the chief market strategist for Warburg, the U.S. unit of UBS, a major investment bank: ‘‘Wall Street is moving from fact to fiction.’’ 24 Her view was that the basis for stock valuation simply was not there. Investors were not irrational in trying to find the next Microsoft or Wal-Mart, but the reported earnings upon which they based their investment decisions simply were not there to support the high-flying stock prices. Attempts to explain the markets in the late 1990s did not account for the magnitude of misreported earnings. If market crashes are associated with key events, the massive and oftentimes fraudulent reporting of earnings exposed in 2000 is a good candidate to explain the crash. Speaking before an audience at the Center for Law and Business on the campus of New York University in September 1998, Arthur Levitt, the commissioner of the Securities and Ex- change Commission, suggested that ‘‘managing may be giving way to ma- nipulation. Integrity may be losing to illusion.’’ 25 Of course history indicates that misrepresentation of earnings occurred in some of the largest firms traded on the street. While this misrepresentation helped drive stock prices higher, even allowing the fifteen-year-old AOL to swallow the larger and older Time Warner, it would not continue. As 1999 turned into 2000 the ‘‘millennium bug’’ failed to materialize and stock prices began to soften. After a flat first half, stocks in late 1999 began to rise into 2000. The peak in the DJIA was reached on January 14, 2000, when it topped out at 11,722.98. In March 2000 the effervescent NASDAQ index, which had increased over 100 percent during the past year, also peaked. From that point on it literally was downhill: The bull market of the 1990s was over. By the end of 2000 the NASDQ index had declined over 50 per- cent, investors losing about $3 trillion in paper wealth. Although not as A Brief History of the U.S. Stock Market 33 sharp, Figure 2.4 shows that the DJIA began a downward slide that did not end until 2003. What ‘‘caused’’ the 2000 break? One candidate is monetary policy. As in earlier episodes, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates higher during 1999. After dealing with the financial crises of 1998, the Federal Reserve embarked on a policy to quash any resurgence of inflation. To do this, the Fed increased the federal funds rate from about 4.5 percent in early 1999 to 6.5 percent by spring 2000. Another ‘‘cause’’ sometimes suggested is the increased amount of insider selling that began in late 1999. Between September 1999 and July 2000, the value of insider stock sales, usually done in large blocks, rose to slightly more than $43 billion (Mahar, 2003). In fact, during the first six months of 2000 alone, insider block sales amounted to $39 billion, much more pronounced than for all of 1997–98. Did those dumping their own company’s stocks know that a break in the market would expose inflated earnings? The expo- sure of corporate scandal and eventual collapse of companies like Enron and Global Crossing to name a couple, gave investors, especially institutional investors, reason enough to bail out. The market lost all the momentum of the previous years and even as the market drifted lower in 2001, the tragic events of September 11, 2001, pushed it down further: The DJIA, which was 11,722 in January 2000, was 8,920.7 when the market reopened on September 17, 2001. It took until 2006 for the DJIA to approach its pre-2000 level. SUMMARY The market’s development was transformed by several notable episodes of boom and bust. Using the four major market breaks of the twentieth century as a guide, the market survived each downfall, often gaining additional reg- ulatory oversight. In 1907 this took the form of a central bank, the Federal Reserve, established in part to stabilize financial markets. The famous Crash of 1929 dramatically changed how the government regulates the securities market with the installment of new market and trading regulations. These changes were so significant that most form the foundation for current reg- ulations. More recently, the 1987 crash led to regulators trying to figure out how to keep ahead of the technology of trading. Their answer was to institute circuit breakers that stop trading when the markets get too hectic. And after the recent 2000 downturn, the focus has been on corporate fraud as com- panies tried to artificially inflate earnings and, therefore, stock prices. We barely scratched the surface of the stock market’s history. As you might imagine, a detailed treatment would (and does) fill volumes. The foregoing provides a glimpse into the development of the U.S. stock market, from its 34 The Stock Market humble beginnings in the late 1700s to the key institution that it is today. Not only has the market changed as new technologies came along, but it also changed as regulators sought to protect investors and establish orderly markets. In every case, the intention is to provide an avenue by which financial capital is efficiently distributed. As we will see in Chapter Seven, this is crucial to maintaining growth of the economy and the well-being of its citizens. NOTES 1. Robert Sobel, The Big Board: A History of the New York Stock Market (New York: Free Press, 1965), 20. 2. Ibid. 3. Richard J. Teweles and Edward S. Bradley, The Stock Market, 5th ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1987), 85. 4. Ibid. 5. Sobel, The Big Board, 81. 6. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash: 1929 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955), 12. 7. Cited in Galbraith, The Great Crash, 20. 8. Ibid., 93. 9. Ibid., 43. 10. Ibid., 179. 11. Ibid., 365. 12. Ibid., 96. 13. Ibid., 115. 14. Maggie Mahar, Bull: A History of the Boom, 1982–1999 (New York: HarperBusiness, 2003), 50. 15. Avner Arbel and Albert E. Kaff, Crash: Ten Days in October Will It Strike Again? (New York: Longman, 1989), ix. 16. Tim Metz, Black Monday: The Catastrophe of October 19, 1987 and Beyond (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 74. 17. Ibid., 88. 18. Ibid. 19. Robert T. Parry, ‘‘The October ’87 Crash Ten Years Later,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter 96–332 (1997). 20. Cited in Mahar, A History of the Boom, 72. 21. Dale W. Jorgenson, ‘‘Information Technology and the U.S. Economy,’’ American Economic Review 91, no. 1 (2001): 1–32, 1–2. 22. Robert Hall, ‘‘Struggling to Understand the Stock Market,’’ American Economic Review 91, no. 2 (2001): 1–11, 1. 23. Cited in Mahar, A History of the Boom, 300. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid., 272. A Brief History of the U.S. Stock Market 35 [...]... that represent claims of ownership A stockholder is a partial owner of the firm: the stock represents the investor’s ‘‘pro rata’’ or proportional ownership of the business A share of stock gives the shareholder a right to a pro rata share of the business’s profits or, in the case of liquidation, the pro rata right to the value of the business’s assets in excess of its liabilities There are two ways to... case the stockholder gets a pro rata share of profits and bears a pro rata share of losses The second case occurs when the business is liquidating or selling itself off In this case, the stockholder gets a pro rata share of any excess in the value of the assets over the liabilities that have been paid off A share of common stock also gives the shareholder a right to vote in the election of the board of. .. onehalf of their profits in the form of dividends; they keep the other half in the form of retained earnings The practice of paying out dividends can vary greatly from one firm to another, however For example, Berkshire Hathaway, the large corporation run by Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest individuals in the country, has made it a practice of not paying out dividends at all Shareholders of Berkshire... ownership.’’ If the firm had ten shares outstanding and chose to issue an additional five shares in a secondary offering, each shareholder now has a claim to one-fifteenth of the firm compared with the original claim to one-tenth of the firm Because of this effect, the original shareholders (owners) of the firm must approve secondary offerings They would be willing to dilute their ownership if they believe the addition... focus on publicly traded stocks Given the size and importance of the major stock exchanges in the United States—for instance, the NYSE or the AMEX—most discussion of the stock market focuses on publicly traded stocks For example, often-heard measures Stocks in Today’s Economy 41 of the market value of stock (calculated as the market price of each share times the number of shares outstanding and summed for... the stock offering is referred to as a secondary offering, indicating that the firm has already offered stock once before A secondary offering, therefore, is another 40 The Stock Market source of new funds However, because more stock is outstanding following secondary offering, the ownership of the business is spread more widely It is in this sense that a secondary offering results in a ‘‘dilution of. .. periodic payments in the form of dividends over time They have, however, seen significant appreciation in the value of their stock as the corporation plowed profits back into the firm for new business investments At the other extreme, most utilities pay out a fairly large share of their profits to shareholders as dividends Their investors often count on the periodic dividend payments, much the same way that... exceeded elsewhere On the other side, the firm needed the new funds coming from the investor when the stock was issued It is willing to agree to turn over at least some of the ownership to the investor in order to acquire these funds As such, stock is really a security that represents an ownership claim An important aspect of this claim to the investor is the protection offered by the corporate structure... not publicly listed, the seller will not have the assistance of an exchange like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in aiding the sale Due to this feature, privately placed stocks are perceived as being much harder to exchange—less liquid—than publicly traded stocks There is less certainty what the seller is willing to offer for the stock in the secondary transaction Because of the potential liquidity... businesses often need injections of funds in order to expand Issuing stock has been a great source of funds for business growth and development THE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING (IPO) An initial public offering is the first time that the general public is given the opportunity to buy stock and invest in a firm In addition to being a first offering, an IPO is a public offering This means that anyone willing to pay the . share of any excess in the value of the assets over the liabilities that have been paid off. A share of common stock also gives the shareholder a right to vote in the election of the board of directors surpass the 4, 000 mark. Using the same time interval, the DJIA went from 4, 000 in 1995 to over 11,700 by 2000. Clearly something was different in the second half of the 1990s. The cost of computing. devaluation of the Thai baht, the crisis spread to the currencies of other countries, including South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. There are several theories, but the most popular